[address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jan Zorz @ go6.si
jan at go6.si
Thu Jul 21 10:20:12 CEST 2011
On 7/20/11 6:49 PM, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > Idea... > > If you are LIR that had no clue and got /32 but now when you know that > you need more and can justify that, you could ask RIPE-NCC IPRA to get > back your original /32, start looking into your justification under > initial alloc policy and if you justify for anything up to (including) > /29, IPRA allocates you justified block starting exactly where > "returned" /32 started. > > Problem solved, no need to renumber. > > Do we need to put this into policy (if accepted) or would BCP work (as > this can be best current practice :) )? ...of course if /29 minimum initial allocation policy proposal change fails... (forgot to mention). jan
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ipv6-wg] additional IPv6 allocation (ripe-512 issues)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]